Jump to content

GDT: @ LA Rams


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, plan9misfit said:

Yeah. He’s in much better physical shape than he was this time last year. He looked fat and slow last year. Being with the team and properly training and practicing has clearly helped him.

Wentz really could’ve used a Zeke yesterday. Our run game and pass protection from the RB position was non existent. 😬

But, yeah.... Zeke being back to old form is great news for y’all.

Edited by TheRealMcCoy
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, plan9misfit said:

And, where was D-Law last night? With the exception of jumping offsides to open the game and a pass deflection, he was literally invisible for the entire game.

Same place he has been for 5 of the 6 seasons (or is it 6 of 7?) He has been here. Getting push but not finishing, chasing the play but rarely getting home, doing enough to give hope but not enough to make a play.

One great year does not make someone a great player. As i said way back when he was signed, this was a huge mistake. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, buddy_z34 said:

Do you think the Rams schemed for Smith or Lawrence?? No one can rush the passer in under 3 seconds, the Rams employed that offense for a reason. Next game against Ryan the pressure will get there

Different test coming from Ryan.  He will go deep and I think they will test our lb's and Safeties. You're right pressure is difficult given the Rams scheme.  Lawrence is a difference maker right?  He had 1 tackle.  I'm not saying he should have had sacks.  I'm saying his performance was lacking last night.  Think of how Dak is micro scrutinized.  Shouldn't the leader of the defense be subject to the same scrutiny?  Does the Rams scheme give Lawrence a pass?

Link to post
Share on other sites

@buddy_z34

No they didnt scheme for lawrence and smith, the rams schemed to cover Goffs shortcomings in a new way..previously, they.covered them by rushing to the line and letting McVay make all the calls in Goffs headset before it cut off. But last year, Defenses caught on and wouldnt align their DBs properly until 15 seconds, to confuse Goff snd force him to read a D faster and make progression throws.

What they began doing late last season, and now vs dallas yesterday, was limit his need to read a D or make progression based reads by making the decision for.him with fast pre-designated throws. I remember Collinsworth saying Kupp was wide open on one play for a sprint to.the end zone but Goff didnt even look at him. Know why? Play designs were to keep goff throwing to his designated target, letting his fast throwing motion and good arm shine. And mask his poor decision making and roller coaster accuracy. 

Yes, a side.effect is limiting effect of a pass rush, and this is how offenses with bad OLs have attacked defenses with great DLs for decades. But they started this last year. Its a gimmick by McVay to spotlight Goffs pros and hide his cons.

Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Northland said:

Different test coming from Ryan.  He will go deep and I think they will test our lb's and Safeties. You're right pressure is difficult given the Rams scheme.  Lawrence is a difference maker right?  He had 1 tackle.  I'm not saying he should have had sacks.  I'm saying his performance was lacking last night.  Think of how Dak is micro scrutinized.  Shouldn't the leader of the defense be subject to the same scrutiny?  Does the Rams scheme give Lawrence a pass?

Never said he gets a pass. I'll just wait and see what he does with a QB who will hold onto the ball longer than 2.7 seconds 

Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Northland said:

  Think of how Dak is micro scrutinized.  Shouldn't the leader of the defense be subject to the same scrutiny?  Does the Rams scheme give Lawrence a pass?

You win the forum. We can.shut down here now LOL

No,.serioisly, this has been my.point all along. People put too much on the QB over every little thing. Too much credit and too much blame. But when cooper isnt getting open all night, wheres his blame? When lawrence goes 3 weeks without even a tackle for loss let alone a sack, wheres his scrutiny? But to majority of fans, none of that matters because the only reason the team lost is because Dak overthrew one or two passes out of 35 attempts.

Edited by Dallas94Ware
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Dallas94Ware said:

You win the forum. We can.shut down here now LOL

No,.serioisly, this has been my.point all along. People put too much on the QB over every little thing. Too much credit and too much blame. But when cooper isnt getting open all night, wheres his blame? When lawrence goes 3 weeks without even a tackle for loss let alone a sack, wheres his scrutiny? But to majority of fans, none of that matters because the only reason the team lost is because Dak overthrew one or two passes out of 30 attempts.

I've said for years QB's get too much credit and too much blame.  It's a team game.  I hate the statement about qb's- he's never won a Super Bowl.  Wrong.  His team hasn't won a championship.  

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, buddy_z34 said:

They MADE the play. It was caught. The rookie WR ran a yard shorter than he was suppose to. In hindsight it was a bad call because we know the results of the play. Everything went how it was suppose to. He was open, he caught it, just didnt run a deep enough route. That's situational awareness, which the rookie quite doesnt have yet

No it'simply a bad call. How many times do WR's not go far enough during the regular season? It happens often. How many times have you seen it happen in your life watching football? So all of a sudden there is no risk on a 4th down a WR won't go far enough? The reason you give is part of many reasons why the 4th down play had a higher degree of failure vs kicking the chippie FG.  

We can all offer other excuses next time-- such as "he dropped the ball." "The QB made the wrong read." "The QB made an awful pass." "They missed the one key block." "They fumbled after getting the 1st down." These are all excuses -- and they are overall reasons why late in the game on a 4th a 3 you don';t take that risk. Too many things can go wrong. Unless the Dallas D stinks? It doesn't. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, TheGame316 said:

The reason analytics tell you to go for it late in that situation is

1) 3 yards should be easy to get. odds are 66% in your favour to get the 1st down 

2) If the game is tied, the Rams will be MORE aggressive and analytics suggest they will be able to get a FG to regain the lead. By going up 4 points with a TD, The rams are now required to get their own TD to regain the lead (Low %). You can't judge the fact the Rams didn't score any more points in the last 12 minutes. The game situation was completely different for them as they still had the lead the entire time

3) Even if you don't get it, you still have ample time and opportunity to get another FG chance later in the game to tie it up (Cowboys had 2 more drives)

All of this is factored in to the analysis that a 4th and 3 chance of a potential 24-20 lead is vastly more likely to help you win then being in a 20-20 tie (remember, you also have to factor in that the FG has a miss potential and is not 100%)

1-- Three yards is NEVER "easy" to get down close in another team's territory vs a QUALITY OPPONENT. 

2-- That's the problem with number 2. I don't believe for a second that vs a quality defense that analytics is showing what you're suggesting late in games unless that's "Tom Brady" at the other end or a lousy defense or a significant matchup? IMO there is probably supporting evidence showing that a mediocre QB vs a good defense is probably not going to lead them to victory on the next series. 

And by taking a bad gamble and going down by 3 vs an equally matched opponent with 4 minutes left and giving them the ball, I'm sure the odds are worse for Dallas. 

And yes they might be very aggressive. And if they are too aggressive and go 3 and out or 4 and out etc-- they give the ball back to Dallas in potentially great field position for Dallas to win the win the game as they might have more than enough clock to score again. Now you are playing to without having to rely on just one play. 

3-- Once Rams kick the fg,  you still might have ample time to score yourself.  

 

Edited by JStar221
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, JStar221 said:

1-- Three yards is NEVER "easy" to get down close in another team's territory vs a QUALITY OPPONENT. 

2-- That's the problem with number 2. I don't believe for a second that vs a quality defense that analytics is showing what you're suggesting late in games unless that's "Tom Brady" at the other end or a lousy defense or a significant matchup? IMO there is probably supporting evidence showing that a mediocre QB vs a good defense is probably not going to lead them to victory on the next series. 

And by taking a bad gamble and going down by 3 vs an equally matched opponent with 4 minutes left and giving them the ball, I'm sure the odds are worse for Dallas. 

And yes they might be very aggressive. And if they are too aggressive and go 3 and out or 4 and out etc-- they give the ball back to Dallas in potentially great field position for Dallas to win the win the game as they might have more than enough clock to score again. Now you are playing to without having to rely on just one play. 

3-- Once Rams kick the fg,  you still might have ample time to score yourself.  

 

This is what advanced analytics is, and is was studied by people who put a lot more time into it and are smarter then you or me

1) It's not "easy" but statistically the odds of getting it and the reward for doing so are in your favour

2) It took a rookie WR running a bad route and a great play by a defender to stop it. It was the right call, a couple of things didn't go our way on it

3) We had 2 more drives with the ball to get the FG, even failing the 1st down. A TD there vastly improves our odds of winning the game

You need to spend more time looking at what Advanced Analytics are. It looks at EVERYTHING, not just the one 4th and 3 play and the odds of getting it. The chance of going up 24-20 vs being tied (and then giving the opponents the ball) increases the overall win probability so much, that the odds are worth going for it. 

Weren't we sick of Garrett always punting on 4th and 1, 4th and 2? Always playing it conservative and still losing in the process? Lets try not to pretend that had they converted the play you all wouldn't be riding MM's jock. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, JStar221 said:

No it'simply a bad call. How many times do WR's not go far enough during the regular season? It happens often. How many times have you seen it happen in your life watching football? So all of a sudden there is no risk on a 4th down a WR won't go far enough? The reason you give is part of many reasons why the 4th down play had a higher degree of failure vs kicking the chippie FG.  

We can all offer other excuses next time-- such as "he dropped the ball." "The QB made the wrong read." "The QB made an awful pass." "They missed the one key block." "They fumbled after getting the 1st down." These are all excuses -- and they are overall reasons why late in the game on a 4th a 3 you don';t take that risk. Too many things can go wrong. Unless the Dallas D stinks? It doesn't. 

And theres no risk in a chippie shot FG?? Just as theres risk on the 4th and 3 theres risk on a FG attempt. I said it as soon as it happened. It was a good call. I'm not changing my mind on it. 

Let's say McCarthy does decide for a FG to tie it up. Who's to say they dont go down the field and score another FG or TD?? Being in the lead the Rams team plays a different way, more conservative. Being tied or needing a score their philosophy changes. Them being in the lead allowed them to be more conservative at the end which allowed Dallas TWO more possessions. That 4th down attempt didnt win or lose the game for Dallas. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, TheGame316 said:

This is what advanced analytics is, and is was studied by people who put a lot more time into it and are smarter then you or me

1) It's not "easy" but statistically the odds of getting it and the reward for doing so are in your favour

2) It took a rookie WR running a bad route and a great play by a defender to stop it. It was the right call, a couple of things didn't go our way on it

3) We had 2 more drives with the ball to get the FG, even failing the 1st down. A TD there vastly improves our odds of winning the game

You need to spend more time looking at what Advanced Analytics are. It looks at EVERYTHING, not just the one 4th and 3 play and the odds of getting it. The chance of going up 24-20 vs being tied (and then giving the opponents the ball) increases the overall win probability so much, that the odds are worth going for it. 

Weren't we sick of Garrett always punting on 4th and 1, 4th and 2? Always playing it conservative and still losing in the process? Lets try not to pretend that had they converted the play you all wouldn't be riding MM's jock. 

A-- Analytics in any form is only as good as your data and how you use that data. What if the data doesn't tell the full story?  

Anyhow, does every team without fail follow "the chart?" If they didn't (which they didn't) why assume the data is telling the full story vs experience? 

For example-- Bill Belichick has said he uses analytics less--than-one percent of the time to make his decisions. To a degree he is exaggerating but he didn't go for one 2 point conversion in 2019. SO tho greatest coach in NFL History has exceptions when to use Analytics, as well as other coaches yet we're supposed to disregard that?  

1-- It's not in your favor. That's the point. Kicking the fg and tying the game was the best play vs this quality opponent. For example, how far back does this data support? You need to know the context of the stats instead of blindly following it. 

2-- This time  you make the excuse "it took a rookie. . . ." The next week when the QB overthrows the receiver that will be another excuse,. The next week the excuse is "the receiver dropped the ball - or fumbled it." The next week it's "the lineman missed a block." There will always be an excuse when your "4th and 3 doesn't work." 

3-- Sure a TD would have been huge. But you needed AT LEAST a 1st down which is hard to get vs a quality defensive opponent. Chances of you getting that 1st down or TD were not good.    

It was a bad call which inevitably turned out bad for the Cowboys. And as we know - this wasn't 4th and 1. Bottomline is - that you will always make an excuse why the 4th and 3 didn't work just as you are doing now instead of taking some responsibility that you just can't blindly follow a chart..This isn't fantasy football.  While you quote some stats from some computer guys that can always hide behind the excuses you are providing - - I'll provide link and a portion of a quote from the link from arguably the greatest coach in NFL History  Bill B-- :

 

https://www.boston.com/sports/new-england-patriots/2019/09/27/bill-belichick-analytics-patriots-bills

Here is a portion of one of his quotes "“I’m not saying it’s a gut thing. It’s an individual analysis based on the things that are pertinent to that game and that situation,” Belichick said.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, JStar221 said:

A-- Analytics in any form is only as good as your data and how you use that data. What if the data doesn't tell the full story?  

Anyhow, does every team without fail follow "the chart?" If they didn't (which they didn't) why assume the data is telling the full story vs experience? 

For example-- Bill Belichick has said he uses analytics less--than-one percent of the time to make his decisions. To a degree he is exaggerating but he didn't go for one 2 point conversion in 2019. SO tho greatest coach in NFL History has exceptions when to use Analytics, as well as other coaches yet we're supposed to disregard that?  

1-- It's not in your favor. That's the point. Kicking the fg and tying the game was the best play vs this quality opponent. For example, how far back does this data support? You need to know the context of the stats instead of blindly following it. 

2-- This time  you make the excuse "it took a rookie. . . ." The next week when the QB overthrows the receiver that will be another excuse,. The next week the excuse is "the receiver dropped the ball - or fumbled it." The next week it's "the lineman missed a block." There will always be an excuse when your "4th and 3 doesn't work." 

3-- Sure a TD would have been huge. But you needed AT LEAST a 1st down which is hard to get vs a quality defensive opponent. Chances of you getting that 1st down or TD were not good.    

It was a bad call which inevitably turned out bad for the Cowboys. And as we know - this wasn't 4th and 1. Bottomline is - that you will always make an excuse why the 4th and 3 didn't work just as you are doing now instead of taking some responsibility that you just can't blindly follow a chart..This isn't fantasy football.  While you quote some stats from some computer guys that can always hide behind the excuses you are providing - - I'll provide link and a portion of a quote from the link from arguably the greatest coach in NFL History  Bill B-- :

 

https://www.boston.com/sports/new-england-patriots/2019/09/27/bill-belichick-analytics-patriots-bills

Here is a portion of one of his quotes "“I’m not saying it’s a gut thing. It’s an individual analysis based on the things that are pertinent to that game and that situation,” Belichick said.

Cool, you're the type of guy that likes to play scared. You live your life like that too?

How do you know MM didn't make an individual analysis based on the things that are pertinent to that game and that situation?

BB's never been wrong, never gone for it on 4th down and not made it?

https://www.theringer.com/nfl/2019/11/13/20962514/nfl-fourth-down-conversion-patriots-lamar-jackson

They only talk about it when you don't make it

Giants forum is 2 slots down. You can go cheer for Garrett there

Edited by TheGame316
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, buddy_z34 said:

And theres no risk in a chippie shot FG?? Just as theres risk on the 4th and 3 theres risk on a FG attempt. I said it as soon as it happened. It was a good call. I'm not changing my mind on it. 

Let's say McCarthy does decide for a FG to tie it up. Who's to say they dont go down the field and score another FG or TD?? Being in the lead the Rams team plays a different way, more conservative. Being tied or needing a score their philosophy changes. Them being in the lead allowed them to be more conservative at the end which allowed Dallas TWO more possessions. That 4th down attempt didnt win or lose the game for Dallas. 

1-- There's a reason why we call it a chippie, right? Sure there is risk but there is less with a chippie, isn't there? There is no way a 4th and 3 deep in other team's end vs a quality defensive opponent is near as risky as kicking a chippie fg.

Okay you aren't changing your mind. Neither am I. 

2-- Okay and I'll counter. Say McCarthy decides to kick a fg and ties it up. Why is it a lock to think Goff being aggressive is going to get the Rams a score?  So by Goff being "aggressive" vs your defense, why is that so bad in a tie game? You shut them down after the 4th-down-play and you still wind up getting your late fg. In thsi 2nd scenario- the question is - T"hat's not better than tying the game and then on your next possession getting another fg?" In this 2nd scenario you probably win in regulation. With not kicking the fg  and not making the 4th down - at best you would probably do is tie with risk of losing in OT.  

3--Teams that are supposed to be very good like Dallas is;- - it's always better to be tied than be behind late in games. 

4-- While the call didn't lose the game for Dallas it certainly was a bad call that contributed to their loss.  

Edited by JStar221
Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, TheGame316 said:

Cool, you're the type of guy that likes to play scared. You live your life like that too?

How do you know MM didn't make an individual analysis based on the things that are pertinent to that game and that situation?

BB's never been wrong, never gone for it on 4th down and not made it?

Giants forum is 2 slots down. You can go cheer for Garrett there

1-- No I;m the type of guy that recognizes sometimes experience and some form of logic can be better than listening to a computer data sheet that's possibly best suited for Fantasy Football. . 

2-- Explain the individual analysis then? I'm arguing the blind following of a computer data sheet. Why take the risk? 

3-- BB's been wrong. But you have too, right? So who am I going to believe? You? Or Him? IMO your argument doesn't make much sense because it just follows one path without considering the opponent and late game imo-- so I'm going with him over you. Quality of an opponent is key so I'm going with one of the greatest coaches ever who seems to have imo logic and winning on his side.  

I get it-- we're not going to agree. I just think you are blindly following stats as if this is a fantasy computer game. It's not just Bill B - heck even Harbaugh says he still goes with his gut 50% of the time over analytics (though he said he'd like to go with Analytics more.-- But he hasn't.) There is something there that is telling these great coaches that at  times analytics is full of crap-- isn't there? OFC it's damn useful. But you treat it like it's the Gospel. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...